On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 6:35 PM, Jack <gykazequ...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> I certainly agree with your stance here. I have been using one
>> ms-dos 7.1 package since at least 2007 or so, easily and effort-
>> lessly. I have helped others find it as well.
It might be "easier" to just tell them to make a bootable floppy via
Explorer. Or use RUFUS to install FreeDOS to USB pen drive.
>> I am not sure where the .bg country code is, but I could not
>> connect to the site when I tried it before writing this note.
> For your info, ".bg" is Bulgaria. Given both Dennis's and your
> problems with the website I noted, I suspect there could be some
> "international" constraints AGAINST Bulgaria, in some areas!
Not as far as I know. Though again, U.S. politics are horribly
arbitrary and annoying. (I didn't realize FreeDoom was equivalent to
munitions.) IIRC, there are some countries where you're not even
allowed to share software (even via SourceForge), lemme search ...
Cuba, North Korea, Sudan, Syria, Iran. (The whole country! Not just
government, not just army, but even common people! No TuxKart for
> My father was a "packrat" (saved EVERYTHING), and I am not. My
> total storage, after almost 50 years of software, is only 180-MB
> and fits easily on CD-RW disks, of which I have 3 as my backups.
It depends on needs. Some people have to test lots of software, so
they have to keep backups of various compilers and OSes, etc. The days
of software being small and self-contained are long gone, so often you
have to download a lot of cruft just to get what you want. Again, a
fast broadband connection is strongly implied, sadly.
Also, and I hate to mention this (as it doesn't interest me and is
frankly way outside the scope of traditional computing), but
multimedia (esp. HD) takes up tons of space, and people often download
(or make their own) movies, songs, etc. It's very very easy to run out
of space with things like that. Heck, even a single modern game takes
several gigs. One single-layer DVD is 4.7 GB (or such), and even
that's (almost) "obsolete" in favor of Blu-Ray. I have no idea how
many BD layers current consoles use (EDIT: Wikipedia says 16 layer
[400 GB] for PS4), but long story short, it's far more than 180 MB.
Though a lot of content doesn't have to be locally available on hard
drive as most people don't "need" the full Wikipedia or full Project
Gutenberg or full DJGPP mirror or all sources (20 GB?) to every
software from their Linux distro installed on their system.
> Thus, I do not need FAT32 or "long filenames",
FAT32 was only in later versions (OSR2?), so the original "vanilla"
Win95 didn't support it anyways, IIRC.
LFNs aren't reliant on FAT32, you can use any FAT, though Win95
explicitly doesn't support those at all in DOS mode, so even there
you're stuck to an external driver like DOSLFN.
BTW, NT 4.0 (1996?) didn't support either of those, so only Win2000
fixed that, but at least DJGPP mirrors have a NTLFN driver to somewhat
support LFNs there (which most software these days refuses to live
> and I do not need the "bloat" that comes with most V7.10 MS-DOS programs.
Heheh. You can't even download VirtualBox without them forcing both
Windows 32-bit and 64-bit editions in one lump! 100 MB! Pardon me if I
think "bloat" doesn't really apply to DOS in any form.
> I also do NOT like that V7.10 will LOSE a "lock drive" command for some
> reason that I have never understood, and that is a "nuisance" as
> it always occurs when I do not expect it. So I stay with V6.22
> MS-DOS, which is NOT "bloated", and has NO "lock drive" to cause
> me any profanity!
IIRC, Win95 came on 18 (overformatted) floppies. I guess traditional
MS-DOS only used three to five? So, I'm not saying there isn't some
fluff (esp. if you don't care for GUIs), but it's not "that" bad. Of
course, I think one guy made a minimal Win95 install in only 5 MB, but
it leaves a lot to be desired. (My current Win7 has a 400 MB
\%windir%\fonts subdir, 517 files, and I don't even actively use any
> My actual "Internet vehicle" is V4.0 Win/NT,
> since there are no good browsers, CD burners, etc., for use with
> MS-DOS. V6.22 or V7.10 helps me there, as Win/NT denies me the
> right to deal with some system files. V6.22 MS-DOS does not!
Good browsers? Depends on what you need. These days, they are almost
other plugins. It's a far cry from where HTML started twenty years
ago. So no, compared to Firefox or Chrome, nothing is any good. But
having said that, Georg's build of Dillo or Mikulas' build of Links
are more than just a little impressive, even with known limitations.
But a major problem is a heavy lack of (modern) packet drivers.
IIRC, there is no free/libre (nor maybe even freeware) ASPI.SYS
replacement, so CD-RW support is almost impossible without that.
>> Most important of all, hear hear on using what you desire. It
>> is why there is a personal in pc after all.
> A pleasure to know you, dear Lady, after all my dealings on this
> forum with "legalists" who FAIL to see that I was only giving an
> EXAMPLE of V7.10 still being available!
We all know how to get it. Most of us already have it. That's why most
of us are using DOS in the first place. But that's leftovers, not
something MS actively develops anymore.
> V6.22 MS-DOS and V4.0 Win/NT also save poor-old retirees like me from paying
> "tribute" to Gates & Co. for their semi-annual collection of new
> BUGS, which they call "service packs"!
The service packs are free, but the full releases are not. Admittedly,
it's not that cheap anymore (something like $199 upgrades, on
average??, IIRC), but there's no other choice (if you want to run
modern Windows software). Blame all the developers who refuse to
restrict themselves to a common denominator, so everyone is constantly
having to upgrade the OS just to support userland stuff. Even latest
IE won't run on anything less than Win7.
You apparently can upgrade to WinXP Pro from NT 4, but I don't know
how good an idea that is (on several fronts). Presumably your PC could
handle it, XP isn't "that" bloated (compared to Vista or higher, which
need much higher requirements). But XP is almost dead. Still, no worse
than NT 4 or 2000, both of which (sadly) most software doesn't target
Heck, even Linux doesn't work very well on old machines. It's just not
a priority for them. They all want to chase newer features, they don't
want minimalism, which unfortunately means they don't test (or care)
for older hardware, much less older OS editions. Who knows, maybe
FreeBSD would work better (64 MB RAM + 1.1 GB storage??), but I kinda
doubt that too.
Yeah, modern computing is a mess.
Sponsored by Intel(R) XDK
Develop, test and display web and hybrid apps with a single code base.
Download it for free now!
Freedos-user mailing list